Topic: Amnesty condemns stoning to death of Afgh Posted: 28 April 2005 at 5:14pm

LONDON: Discrimination against women in Afghanistan will continue to have grave consequences until the government takes concrete steps to end it, said Amnesty International following the killing by stoning of a 29 year-old woman accused of adultery.

The killing, committed last week, is alleged to be the first incident of the execution of a woman for committing adultery since the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001.

According to eyewitnesses, the 29-year old, named only as Amina, was dragged out of her parent's house in Urgu District, Badakhan province by her husband and local officials before being publicly stoned to death. The man accused of committing adultery with her is alleged to have been whipped a hundred times and freed.

According to reports, Amina was condemned to death by local court and then killed within approximately 48 hours.

"The case of Amina demonstrates the failure of the Afghan government to protect, ensure and dispense justice, particularly for women," said Amnesty International.

"Religious and customary practices cannot be used as an excuse for violating the fundamental human rights of women."

"The Afghan government has the responsibility of protecting women from violence, committed not only by the state but also by private individuals and groups."

Amnesty International welcomes the promised investigation by the Afghan government into Amina's unlawful death and to bring all those responsible to justice.

The organization calls on the death penalty to be abolished. The case of Amina illustrates the irredeemable injustice of the application of the death penalty.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstances on the grounds that it represents the ultimate cruel inhuman and degrading punishment and violates the right to life.

This is especially pertinent with regards to Afghanistan where the central criminal justice system is unable to provide adequate safeguards against local court decisions and similarly cannot, as of yet, ensure the minimum standards of a fair trial with due process.

Amnesty International calls upon the Afghan government to uphold its international obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which under Article 7 clearly states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Under international human rights law, states must exercise due diligence to secure women's rights to equality, life, liberty and security, and freedom from discrimination, torture and cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment.

Amnesty, citing eyewitnesses, said Amina's husband and local officials dragged her out of her parents' house before stoning her to death in public. The man accused of committing adultery with her reportedly was whipped one hundred times and freed.

Police officials and Afghan human rights commission workers, however, have told news agencies that local accounts also suggest the possibility that Amina's husband and his family may have killed her by some other means, not by stoning, and that they could have trumped up the adultery accusations against her to deflect her request for a separation.

Journalists also have reported that Amina's husband recently returned from Iran after five years away and that she asked him for a separation on the grounds that her husband could not support her. The husband, however, accused Amina of having a relationship with another man. It was not clear whether the couple had any children. "

As soon as at happens anywhere, I'm sure they will. Don't see why not - that sort of behaviour _is_ inhuman and degrading. Isn't that why the punishment exists?

Besides, in many cases, the charges are FALSE and/or the circumstances are deliberately arranged by others, so those sorts of punishments you mentioned should NOT be carried out because the person to be punished is NOT actually guilty. And 99% of the time it is only the woman punished, and this is not fair, either. Punishment should only be meted out if BOTH people involved can be punished. (AND if they are ACTUALLY guilty, not just victims of other people with twisted, criminal agendas)

Even Prophet Mohammed ignored a man 3 times who told him that he has committed adultery - only on the 4th time the man admitted his guilt did Mohammed decide that the man needed to be punished.

Do most people punished in the Islamic ways have 4 witnesses to prove they were guilty? Or, like women and children in impoverished, uneducated parts of Pakistan, are they just tortured and/or killed by other ignorant peasants who have a grudge or an over-active imagination?

Thank God for Amnesty International - they exist to try to save all the people who AREN'T guilty!

Still wondering! Who is to decide a certain type of punishment is “inhuman and degrading”? Amnesty International? If so, what are the criteria for such decision? What if a set of rules and punishments is accepted and practised by 1.3 billion people in the world? And what if these punishments are meted out to only those who live within the power structure of an organisation? Above all, since such punishments are prescribed in the constitution of Islam, who dares to act against it? Will Amnesty still interfere?

When a man was sentenced to 50 years in prison for stealing US$153 worth of video tapes, didn’t Amnesty find it “inhuman and degrading”? Since it didn’t, what kind of justice is Amnesty looking for? In the Enron case, three people have swindled millions of people of their life savings amounting to billions of dollars, and nobody went to jail. Is it the type of justice Amnesty would agree with?

In Shariah, punishments such as cutting of hands of incorrigible thieves and public caning of adulterers are imposed. These punishments are more exemplary and preventive than punitive. And these punishments are so effective that they only have to be meted out very, very rarely. And, the society in which the Shariah is practiced, people live in peace, and without fear. Does Amnesty still prefer the 50 years’ jail sentence for stealing video tapes worth $153 to the Shariah law?

You can’t be more right when you said that “in many cases, the charges are FALSE and/or the circumstances are deliberately arranged by others.” I am with you. We should act on such cases and we should voice our disagreement as loudly as possible. For example, incidents like the following must be condemned: "Studies show that in this century, at least 400 innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes they did not commit. Of those 400, 23 were executed." (and these statistics are for the state of California only). And of course, together with the Amnesty, we should fight against such injustice, rather than fighting against isolated cases of stoning to death, that happens once in a blue moon, due to ignorance or for some other reasons. When that happens, the relevant authorities will know how to deal with such incidents. Interference from outsiders is not welcome. If an individual or an organisation (that includes the Amnesty International) tries to attract undue attention, it must be looked upon suspiciously. There must be a hidden agenda behind their action.

Once again, as you said, “in many cases, the charges are FALSE and/or the circumstances are deliberately arranged by others…”

“In 1990, a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that, "in 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." Of the executions in the USA between 1930 and 1967, 54% were black persons although blacks constitute only some 12% of the population of that country.” And this is what we should call inhuman and degrading. We should fight against it.

“American death penalty statistics show that the number of women executed as a percentage of those eligible for the death penalty is far less than that of men. This shows a clear bias in favour of women.” And as you said, “it is not fair.”

Your mention of the Prophet ignoring an adulterer three times is enlightening. And that is what I was trying to highlight in this post. It shows that the extreme cases of punishment are administered very rarely depending on the merit of each case. And at the same time, it shows another thing: the adulterer came forward voluntarily for the punishment. Also, take note that he came forward repeatedly for the punishment. So, I still wonder how the Amnesty International (or anybody else for that matter) can find fault with the Shariah.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.